a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2003 HUMAN CAPITAL

Opportunities to 

Improve Executive 

Agencies’ Hiring 

Processes

GAO-03-450
There is widespread recognition that the current federal hiring process all too 

often does not meet the needs of agencies in achieving their missions, managers 

in filling positions with the right talent, and applicants for a timely, efficient, 

transparent, and merit-based process. Numerous studies over the past decade 

have noted problems with the federal hiring process. Nearly all of the federal 

human resource directors from the 24 largest federal agencies told us that it 

takes too long to hire quality employees. According to data compiled by OPM, 

the estimated time to fill a competitive service position was typically more than 

3 months, with some human resources directors citing examples of hiring delays 

exceeding 6 months. The competitive hiring process is hampered by inefficient 

or ineffective practices, including defining a vacant job and pay that is bound by 

narrow federal classification standards, unclear job announcements, the quality 

of certain applicant assessment tools, time-consuming panels to evaluate 

applicants, and the “rule of three” that limits selecting managers choice of 

candidates. Equally important, agencies need to develop their hiring systems 

using a strategic and results-oriented approach.

GAO studied five agencies that human capital experts identified as having taken 

steps to improve parts of the hiring process—the U.S. Geological Survey, the 

Department of the Army, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Department of 

Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service and Forest Service. Some of these 

practices might help agencies across government improve their hiring processes. 

OPM recognizes that the federal hiring process needs reform and has a major 

initiative to study the federal hiring process. OPM’s efforts will be most effective 

to the extent to which they help transform agency hiring practices from process 

focused to mission-focused hiring tools that are more closely integrated into 

agencies strategic plans. 

Total Federal New Hires, 1990–2002 

0

30,000

60,000

90,000

120,000

150,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Source: OPM Central Personnel Data File.

New hires

Improving the federal hiring 

process is critical, as the number of 

new hires is expected to increase 

substantially. Federal agencies are 

responsible for their hiring 

processes, but must generally 

comply with applicable Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) 

rules and regulations. 

Congressional requesters asked 

GAO to identify federal hiring 

obstacles, provide examples of 

innovative hiring practices, and 

identify opportunities for 

improvement. To address these 

issues, GAO interviewed the human 

resources directors in 24 largest 

departments and agencies, 

analyzed the hiring practices of five 

federal executive branch agencies, 

and reviewed OPM’s role in the 

hiring process. 

As a part of its ongoing efforts to 

improve federal human capital 

management, OPM needs to reform 

the classification process, assist 

agencies in automating their hiring 

processes, develop and help 

agencies develop improved hiring 

assessment tools; and review the 

effectiveness of selected hiring 

authorities. 

 

OPM and the agencies we studied 

provided comments on a draft of 

this report. OPM generally agreed 

with the conclusions and 

recommendations. The report was 

revised to reflect the agency 

comments. 

HUMAN CAPITAL 

Opportunities to Improve Executive 

Agencies’ Hiring Processes

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-450.

To view the full report, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact J. Christopher 

Mihm at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-450, a report to 

congressional requesters. 

May 2003
Page i GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 7

Federal Hiring Is a Lengthy, Cumbersome Process 11

OPM’s Role and Performance in the Federal Hiring Process 27

Conclusions 28

Recommendations for Executive Action 29

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 29

Appendixes

Appendix I: Federal Hiring Using the Competitive Service or the 

Excepted Service 32

Appendix II: Description of Category Rating Project Carried Out by the 

Agricultural Research Service and the Forest Service 34

Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 35

Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management 38

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense 44

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 51

Tables Table 1: Hiring Problems and Actions Under Way 4

Table 2: Fiscal Year 2002 New Hires by Department 10

Table 3: Survey Responses from 24 HR Directors 37

Figures Figure 1: Total New Federal Hires from Fiscal Years 1990 through 

2002 2

Figure 2: Typical Steps for Filling Vacancies through the 

Competitive Examining Process 8
Contents

Page ii GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Abbreviations

ACWA Administrative Careers with America

ARS Agricultural Research Service

DOD Department of Defense

FS Forest Service

HR human resources

MSPB Merit Systems Protection Board

NAPA National Academy of Public Administration

OPM Office of Personnel Management

PACE Professional and Administrative Career Exam

SES Senior Executive Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. 

Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product.
Page 1 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

May 30, 2003 Lret

Congressional Requesters

A high performance organization needs a dynamic, results-oriented 

workforce with the requisite talents, multidisciplinary knowledge, and upto-date skills to ensure that it is equipped to accomplish its mission and 

achieve its goals. To acquire such a workforce and replace the huge cohort 

of federal employees eligible for retirement within the next 5-10 years 

demands that agencies have effective hiring processes so that they can 

compete for talented people in a highly competitive job market. 

Governmentwide, the number of federal new hires was about 50,000 a year 

in the mid-1990s, when many agencies were downsizing, but totaled more 

than 143,000 in fiscal year 2002.1

 The annual number of new hires could 

easily increase to more than 150,000 as agencies take actions to address the 

security needs arising from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and 

to fill vacancies created by the large number of employees expected to 

retire over the next few years. The fiscal year 2003 budget called for an 

additional 27,000 full-time equivalent civilian positions in the Executive 

Branch over fiscal year 2002. 

Since 1996, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has delegated to 

federal executive branch agencies the authority to perform almost all 

hiring-related tasks; individual federal agencies control the way virtually all 

new hires are brought into their organizations.2 Generally, people are hired 

into competitive service positions, excepted service positions, or the 

Senior Executive Service. As shown in figure 1, the majority of federal 

hiring is for competitive service positions, and most are filled through the 

competitive examination process, which is governed by statutes and OPM 

regulations. In fiscal year 2001, about 72 percent (75,000 of the 104,000) of 

jobs that were filled were staffed using competitive service hiring 

authorities. In fiscal year 2002, with the increased excepted service hiring 

of the Transportation Security Administration, the percentage of 

competitive service hires dropped to 52 percent (74,000 of 143,000).

1

 Much of the increase in federal new hires in 2002 was due to the hiring of baggage 

screeners and other personnel in the new Transportation Security Administration.

2

 This report discusses the hiring of new employees into the federal government and focuses 

on the competitive service hiring process. Agencies can also fill vacant positions using the 

merit promotion process within their agency or through transfers from other agencies.
Page 2 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Figure 1: Total New Federal Hires from Fiscal Years 1990 through 2002

Note: Data are for new permanent full- and part-time hires based on information from OPM. 

While recognizing the need for flexibility in hiring employees, the federal 

government seeks to ensure that appointments comply with the 

cornerstone of federal hiring—the merit principles. The examination 

process is one of the processes intended to ensure that merit principles are 

complied with and includes notifying the public that the government will 

accept applications for employment and assessing applicants’ relative 

competencies or knowledge, skills, and abilities against job-related criteria 

to identify the most qualified candidates. The applicants for competitive 

service positions must generally compete against each other through the 

competitive examination process. 

In response to your requests,3 the objectives of this report are to

• identify major factors that hamper or delay the federal hiring process;

3

 This report was also done at the request of the Honorable Fred Thompson, former Ranking 

Minority Member, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.

0

30,000

60,000

90,000

120,000

150,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Source: OPM Central Personnel Data File.

New hires

 Excepted service 

 Competitive service 
Page 3 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

• provide examples of innovative practices used by our selected agencies 

to improve their hiring processes; and

• identify opportunities for OPM, agencies, and others to improve the 

federal hiring process.

To address these issues, we interviewed and surveyed the human resources 

(HR) directors in the federal government’s 24 largest departments and 

agencies. In addition to reviewing our own previous work, we reviewed 

several studies of federal hiring by OPM, the Merit Systems Protection 

Board (MSPB), the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), 

and others. In addition, we further analyzed the hiring practices of five 

executive branch agencies that had taken steps to improve their hiring 

processes: the Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service 

(ARS) and Forest Service (FS), the Department of the Army (Army), the 

U.S. Census Bureau (Census), and U.S Geological Survey (USGS).4

 We also 

reviewed OPM’s role in the hiring process and collected and analyzed data 

from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File on the use of various hiring 

authorities. (See app. III for details on our scope and methodology.) 

Results in Brief There is widespread recognition that the current federal hiring process all 

too often does not meet the needs of agencies in achieving their missions, 

managers in filling positions with the right talent, and applicants for a 

timely, efficient, transparent, and merit-based process. Numerous studies 

over the past decade by OPM, MSPB, NAPA, the Partnership for Public 

Service, the National Commission on the Public Service, and GAO have 

noted problems with the federal hiring process. Nearly all of the federal 

HR directors from the 24 major federal departments and agencies reported 

that it takes too long to hire quality employees. Specifically, 21 of these HR 

directors said that the time-to-hire was a moderate to great problem. 

According to data compiled by OPM, the estimated time to typically fill a 

competitive service position was more than 3 months with some HR 

directors citing examples of hiring delays exceeding 6 months. 

OPM and others have recognized that nearly all parts of the lengthy 

competitive hiring process are cumbersome and ineffective. Agencies have 

the primary responsibility for streamlining and automating their hiring 

4

 We have also taken a number of actions to improve our hiring process, including 

strengthening our recruitment effort and automating our application and ranking process.
Page 4 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

processes, but OPM also plays an important role in providing leadership 

and oversight of the merit-based employment system and helping agencies 

meet their hiring challenges. Both the agencies we studied and OPM have 

recognized that the hiring system needs improvement and have taken a 

number of actions. Table 1 below summarizes the key problems with the 

federal hiring process that we, OPM, and others have identified, and what 

actions are being taken to address them.

Table 1: Hiring Problems and Actions Under Way

Source: GAO.

a

The Luevano consent decree is a 1981 agreement that settled a lawsuit alleging that a written test, 

Professional and Administrative Careers Examination (PACE), had an adverse impact on African 

Americans and Hispanics. See Luevano v. Campbell, 93 F.R.D. 68 (D.D.C. 1981). The consent decree 

called for the elimination of PACE and required replacing it with alternative examinations. Eventually, 

OPM developed the Administrative Careers with America examination. The consent decree also 

established two special hiring programs, Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural, for limited use in 

filling former PACE positions.

b

5 U.S.C. § 3318(a) requires the selecting official to select from among the top three ranked candidates 

available for appointment—this is the rule of three.

The problem Actions under way

Defining a job and determining the appropriate pay is 

complicated by the classification processes and standards, 

which are outdated and not applicable to the jobs and work 

of today.

OPM has revised the classification standards for several job series, 

including health care professions and law enforcement, to make them 

clearer and more relevant to current job duties and responsibilities. OPM 

points out that this is only a partial solution noting that the classification 

standards and process need to be reformed. 

Unclear, unfriendly job announcements cause confusion, 

delay hiring, and serve as poor recruiting tools.

OPM has initiated an interagency project to modernize federal job vacancy 

announcements, including providing guidance to agencies to enhance 

announcements. OPM is seeking contractor support for its USAJOBS 

Web site to make it easier and quicker for people to find federal jobs and to 

enhance the site’s “eye-catching” appeal. 

A key assessment tool for evaluating applicants for Luevano 

Consent Decreea

 positions and related hiring programs is 

ineffective. 

OPM’s strategic plan states that by fiscal year 2005 governmentwide hiring 

selections are to be based on improved assessment tools.

Manual processes, including the convening of panels and 

the manual rating and ranking of applicants to determine 

best-qualified applicants, are time consuming.

Automating the hiring process can improve hiring timeliness and efficiency. 

USGS automated its hiring function resulting in a reduction of processing 

time, a reduction of 1,800 staff days of work, and an exponential increase 

in the number of applicants. Census also developed an automated hiring 

system for three critical occupations. In addition, OPM has developed an 

automated staffing system, USA Staffing, which can be purchased by 

federal agencies.

Numerical rating and ranking and the “rule of three” b limit 

the choice of applicants.

Congress passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that authorized 

agencies to use category rating in lieu of numerical rating and adherence 

to the “rule of three.” Category rating was determined to be effective in a 

demonstration project conducted by the ARS and FS. OPM is currently 

drafting guidance implementing this new flexibility.
Page 5 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

The importance of OPM’s success in its hiring initiatives is underscored by 

the results to our survey in October 2002, where HR directors had mixed 

views on whether OPM helped or hindered their agencies’ hiring processes. 

A little less than half thought that OPM helped the hiring process. Many 

thought that OPM neither helped nor hindered the process and a few 

thought OPM hindered their hiring efforts. HR directors said that OPM 

needed to be a more active resource and enhance its role as a 

“clearinghouse” of information while providing more guidance and better 

expertise to agencies. This included assisting agencies in evaluating their 

internal hiring processes as well as completing more comprehensive 

evaluations of governmentwide hiring. As a part of this process, some 

agencies explained that OPM needed to provide information and “best 

practices” associated with automating the hiring process. They said it is 

also important that OPM address key hiring obstacles, including job 

classification, job announcements, manually rating candidates, and 

assessment tools, especially those tools associated with hiring for the more 

than 100 entry-level occupations covered by the Luevano Consent Decree.

More specifically, OPM’s efforts will be most effective to the extent to 

which they help transform agency hiring practices from process focused to 

mission-focused hiring tools that are more closely integrated into agencies’ 

strategic plans. Accordingly, as a part of its overall hiring initiative, we 

recommend that OPM

• study how to improve, streamline, and reform the classification process;

• continue to assist agencies in making job announcements and Web 

postings more user friendly and effective; 

• assist agencies in automating their hiring processes;

• develop and help agencies develop improved hiring assessment tools; 

and

• review the effectiveness of the Outstanding Scholar and 

Bilingual/Bicultural Luevano Consent Decree hiring authorities.

OPM and the Department of Defense (DOD) provided written comments on 

a draft of this report, which are reprinted in appendices IV and V. USGS, 

Census, FS, and ARS provided technical comments that have been 

incorporated into the report.
Page 6 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

OPM generally agreed with the conclusions and recommendations in the 

report. However, OPM expressed several concerns with our methodology. 

It believed the section on the classification and position description 

process could be misleading because the majority of jobs are filled without 

this step. We agree, but note that the more important problem with the 

classification process is that inaccurate position descriptions and related 

pay determinations that result from the job classification could hamper 

efforts to fill the positions with the right employees. OPM also believed 

that our draft missed an opportunity to hold agencies more accountable for 

their hiring processes. Throughout the draft, we note that agencies are 

primarily responsible for their hiring processes and provide concrete 

examples of what some agencies have done to improve their processes. 

OPM also provided several examples of actions it is taking to improve the 

hiring process. Finally, OPM questioned our methodology of meeting with 

agency HR directors to assess how well OPM is assisting agencies in 

improving their hiring processes. It believes that chief operating officers 

would provide a better perspective of agency recruiting and retention 

issues. While we agree these officials could provide some added overall 

perspective about the results of the hiring process, agency HR directors 

better understand and are responsible for their agencies’ hiring processes.

DOD noted several areas where it believed that OPM needed to do much 

more to address governmentwide hiring problems. We agree that OPM 

should do more to improve governmentwide hiring and include several 

recommendations to OPM.
Page 7 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Background The cornerstone of federal hiring is its merit basis. Congress has retained 

the principle of appointment by merit throughout its various amendments 

and compilations of civil service laws. In enacting the Civil Service Reform 

Act of 1978, Congress reiterated the importance of merit in hiring by 

including a merit principle, which requires that “[r]ecruitment should be 

from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to 

achieve a work force from all segments of society, and selection and 

advancement should be determined solely on the basis of relative ability, 

knowledge, and skills, after fair and open competition which assures that 

all receive equal opportunity.” 5

 OPM is responsible for ensuring that the 

personnel management functions it delegates to agencies are conducted in 

accordance with merit principles and the standards it has established for 

conducting those functions.6

 In January 1996, OPM delegated examining 

authority, acting under the authority of Public Law 104-52, to federal 

agencies for virtually all positions in the competitive service. The delegated 

examining authority requires agencies to conduct competitive 

examinations that comply with merit system principles, other personnelrelated laws, and regulations as set forth in OPM’s Delegated Examining 

Operations Handbook. 

Even though the majority of the civilian workforce obtained positions 

through the open competitive service examination process,7

 certain 

positions are in the excepted service and are excepted from the 

competitive examination process. 

The competitive hiring process, which is described in more detail in 

appendix I, is shown in figure 2. 

5

 5 U.S.C. 2301 § (b)(1).

6

 5 U.S.C. § 1104.

7

 Agencies may also fill vacant positions with current government employees through 

competitive merit promotion. The process is less complicated than competitive examination 

of outside hires because neither the rule of three that limits selection to the top three 

candidates nor veterans preference apply to merit promotions. Also, applicants are not 

ranked on the basis of their numerical scores. Merit promotion job certificates include all of 

the candidates determined to be among the best qualified, and managers can select from any 

of those candidates.
Page 8 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Figure 2: Typical Steps for Filling Vacancies through the Competitive Examining 

Process

● Writes position description 

 and establishes job 

 classification (occupation) 

 and pay grade level.

● Conducts job analysis:

Identifies job's important 

 roles, functions, and 

 tasks.

● Develops weighted 

 criteria to evaluate the 

 relative competencies, 

 and knowledge, skills, 

 and abilities of applicants.

● Writes crediting or 

 rating plan for making 

 consistent and job-

 related determinations 

 about the relative 

 qualifications of 

 applicants for a position.

Delegated examining unit

● Complies with OPM 

 procedures for 

 accepting and 

 documenting timely, 

 complete, and 

 preference-eligible 

 applications.

● Complies with OPM 

 content requirements.

● Determines 

 open/closing dates.

● Complies with OPM's 

 minimum open 

 periods.

● Posts announcement 

 on USAJOBS, 

 governmentwide 

 automated 

 employment 

 information system.

Human capital office/ 

job manager

Prepare public notice

and job vacancy 

announcement 

Receive applications

Define job and set pay, 

qualifications 

and assessment 

criteria ● Electronically

● By mail

● In person

Source: GAO.
Page 9 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Human capital office

● U.S. citizenship and 

 basic OPM educational 

 and work experience 

 qualifications standards.

Selecting official

Rate and rank 

qualified candidates Candidate selection

Screen for eligibility 

and minimum 

qualification 

standards

Bring new hire 

on board

● Makes job offer.

102 days average

● Conducts 

 pre-employment checks 

 and security clearances.

● Brings new hire 

 on board.

● Sends a list of at least 

 three candidates to 

 selecting official.

● Convenes rating/ 

 ranking panels.

● Applies criteria in 

 crediting or rating 

 plan to make 

 consistent, job-related 

 determinations on 

 relative merits of 

 applicants.

● Applies veterans’ 

 preference.

● Prepares a numerically

 ranked list of the 

 eligible candidates.

* Homeland Security Act 

 of 2002 permits 

 category rating.

● Conducts interviews.

● Checks references.

● Makes selection from top 

 three available candidates

 (may choose not to 

 select anyone).

● Veterans may 

 not be passed over for 

 nonveterans without 

 justification and OPM 

 approval.

* Category rating will permit 

 selection of anyone in 

 best qualified category 

 (except where veteran's 

 preference applies).
Page 10 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

The number of new hires increased substantially since the mid-1990s—

increasing from about 50,000 employees in 1996 to over 143,000 employees 

in 2002. Hiring in the mid-1990s declined because many agencies were 

downsizing and did not need to fill positions. With the slowdown in 

downsizing and the increasing numbers of personnel retiring, agencies are 

increasingly hiring new employees. Prior to fiscal year 2002, about onethird of all hires were hired by DOD. In 2002, the largest federal hirer was 

the Department of Transportation, primarily the Transportation Security 

Administration.8

 Table 2 shows total new hires by department in fiscal year 

2002.

Table 2: Fiscal Year 2002 New Hires by Department

Source: OPM Central Personnel Data File.

The federal government’s hiring is expected to continue to increase. In 

2003, the President’s budget called for approximately 27,000 additional fulltime equivalent federal civilian workers in the executive branch. This 

follows a 36,000 increase in full time equivalent positions in fiscal year 

2002. 

8

 Since March 1, 2003, the Transportation Security Administration is part of the Department 

of Homeland Security.

Agency

Competitive 

service

Excepted 

service Total

Department of Transportation 1,041 42,872 43,913 

DOD 24,969 12,372 37,341 

Department of the Treasury 16,924 943 17,867 

Department of Veterans Affairs 6,399 3,994 10,393 

Department of Justice 6,956 1,122 8,078 

Department of Agriculture 4,327 1,161 5,488 

Department of Health and Human 

Services 3,072 925 3,997 

Department of the Interior 2,184 953 3,137 

Social Security Administration 1,572 1,485 3,057 

Department of Commerce 2,032 526 2,558 

All others 4,753 2,550 7,303 

Total 74,229 68,903 143,132 
Page 11 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Federal Hiring Is a 

Lengthy, Cumbersome 

Process

It is widely recognized both within government and the private sector that 

the federal hiring process is lengthy and cumbersome and hampers 

agencies’ ability to hire the people they need to achieve their agency goals 

and missions. Numerous studies over the past decade by OPM, MSPB, 

NAPA, the Partnership for Public Service, the National Commission on the 

Public Service, and GAO have noted problems with the federal hiring 

process. Our October 2002 survey of HR directors at 24 major departments 

and agencies indicated that 21 of 24 said that the time needed to fill 

positions in their agencies was a moderate to very great problem. 

Moreover, directors at 13 of those agencies reported that the time to hire 

was a great to very great problem. Our October 2001 survey showed that 22 

directors reported that time to hire was a moderate to great problem. 

Nearly all (22 of 24) of the HR directors we met with said the lengthy and 

cumbersome hiring process is a major factor that affects or increases the 

time needed to fill positions.

HR directors cited problems with the lengthy hiring process. For example, 

an HR director of a major federal department noted that thousands of 

applicants had responded to nationwide openings for a critical occupation 

at a number of locations. However, because it took so long to manually 

process the applications, only 1 in 20 of the applicants were still interested 

in the job when notified that they had been selected. Another HR director 

noted that many managers, supervisors, and job applicants do not 

understand the rules and procedures governing federal employment. She 

said that because of the lack of expertise and complicated process, the 

agency often loses out in competition with the private sector because of its 

inability to make timely job offers. Another HR director told us that a 

significant factor that hampers hiring is the paperwork-intensive hiring 

process that continues from application, rating and ranking of applicants 

and production of best qualified lists, through to the “17 forms” that a new 

hire must complete before being brought onboard. 

Although, as noted above, nearly all HR directors and others note that the 

time to hire is too long for most federal hires. Comprehensive department 

or governmentwide data are not available; however, in fiscal year 2002, 

OPM compiled and analyzed data on time-to-hire and found that it typically 

took 102 days for agencies to fill a vacancy using the competitive process. 

OPM defined the time to hire time frame as the time between when the 

request to hire or fill a position was received in the HR office to the 

appointment of an applicant to the position. Additional time might be 

needed for a manager to obtain approval for the requested hiring action at 
Page 12 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

the beginning of the process or for the new employee to receive a security 

clearance at the end of the process. 

Other organizations have noted problems with the lengthy cumbersome 

federal hiring process. 

• In July 2002, NAPA reported that federal “hiring remains a slow and 

tedious process.” The report noted that “Many managers are attempting 

to rebuild a pipeline of entry level employees in this very competitive 

labor market, yet current hiring methods do not keep pace with the 

private sector.”9

• In September 2002, MSPB said that the federal hiring process has a 

number of key problems including “overly complex and ineffective 

hiring authorities” and “inadequate, time-consuming assessment 

procedures.”10

• In November 2002, OPM in its strategic plan for 2002 through 2007 

stated, “ There is a general perception that our hiring process takes too 

long and may not provide well-qualified candidates.”11

• In January 2003, the National Commission on the Public Service said, 

“Recruitment to federal jobs is heavily burdened by ancient and illogical 

procedures that vastly complicate the application process and limit the 

hiring flexibility of individual managers.”12

9

 National Academy of Public Administration, Summary of Human Resources Management 

Research for the National Commission on the Public Service (Washington, D.C.: July 2002).

10 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Making the Public Service Work: Recommendations 

for Change (Washington, D.C.: September 2002).

11 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Strategic Plan 2002-2007 (Washington, D.C.: 

November 2002).

12 National Commission on the Public Service, Urgent Business for America: Revitalizing 

the Federal Government for the 21st Century (Washington, D.C.: January 2003).
Page 13 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Not only does the current hiring process not serve agencies and managers 

well as they seek to obtain the right people with the right skills, but 

applicants can be dissuaded from public service by the complex and 

lengthy process. According to a poll commissioned by the Partnership for 

Public Service, “many people view the process of seeking federal 

employment as a daunting one. Three-quarters of non-federal workers say 

making the application process quicker and simpler would be an effective 

way of attracting talented workers to government.”13

As many of these and other studies have noted, and as many HR directors 

noted in our interviews, nearly all parts of the competitive hiring process 

hamper effective and efficient federal hiring. Key problem areas include 

the following.

• Outdated and cumbersome procedures to define a job and set the pay 

are not applicable to the jobs and work of today.

• Unclear, unfriendly job announcements cause confusion, delay hiring, 

and serve as poor recruiting tools.

• A key assessment tool and hiring programs used for several entry-level 

positions are ineffective.

• Convening panels and the manual rating and ranking of applicants to 

determine best-qualified applicants is time-consuming.

• Numerical rating and ranking and the “rule of three” limit the choice of 

applicants and are viewed as ineffective.14

OPM and the agencies we studied have taken steps to address some of 

these hiring obstacles. Specifically, five agencies we examined—USGS, 

Army, Census, ARS, and FS—took systematic and comprehensive 

approaches that helped to transform their process-oriented hiring systems 

to ones that are focused on meeting their agencies’ goals and missions. The 

13 Hart-Teeter Research, The Unanswered Call to Pubic Service: Americans’ Attitudes 

Before and After September 11th (Washington, D.C.: October 2001).

14 As previously discussed, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 now permits category rating 

that expands the number of applicants that an agency official may choose from when filling 

a position. That rating approach should make the rating process less complex and time 

consuming than the numerical rating and ranking process.
Page 14 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

USGS approach was to focus on automating its hiring process for all of its 

occupations, except research Senior Executive Service positions, in order 

to reduce hiring time, increase the number of applicants, and better serve 

its internal and external customers. Army’s approach was a data-driven 

approach—Army developed automated tools to identify weaknesses in its 

hiring process and identified an approach to overcome them, including 

automation. Census’s approach, in reaction to the need to quickly hire 500 

specialists for the 2000 Census, was to work with OPM to jointly develop an 

automated hiring system for three mission-critical occupations and later to 

work toward integrating hiring for all its occupations into its parent 

organization’s automated hiring system. And, as discussed later, OPM also 

identified hiring improvements as a critical goal in its strategic plan and has 

a multi-faceted hiring initiative under way. ARS and FS implemented a 

pilot project that demonstrated a more effective way to rate and rank 

candidates for positions. 

The following sections describe each of these problems in more detail and 

discuss some specific actions under way by agencies and OPM to begin to 

address the problem.

Process of Defining the Job 

and Determining Pay Is 

Complex and Antiquated

The Problem

The process of defining a job and determining pay is complex and 

antiquated, according to HR directors and experts. Defining the job and 

setting pay must be based on federal job classification standards, which are 

set forth in the Classification Act of 1949.15 The classification process and 

standard job classifications were generally developed decades ago when 

typical jobs were more narrowly defined and in many cases, were clerical 

or administrative. However, today’s knowledge-based organizations’ jobs 

require a much broader array of tasks that may cross over the narrow and 

rigid boundaries of job classifications. The federal job classification 

process not only delays the hiring process, but more important, the 

resulting job classifications and related pay might not match the actual 

duties of the job. This mismatch can hamper efforts to fill the positions 

with the right employees. 

15 5 U.S.C. § 5101-5115.
Page 15 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Once management decides to fill a vacant position, or create a new 

position, the HR office is called upon to see if a position description exists. 

If a position description does not exist or is not accurate for the vacant 

position, a position description must be completed. Such a description 

documents the major duties, responsibilities, and organizational 

relationships of a job and includes, among others, the knowledge required 

for the position, supervisory controls, complexity and nature of the 

assignment, and the scope and effect of the work. 

Once the job description is complete, the job is classified by matching the 

duties and responsibilities to the General Schedule requirements. The 

Classification Act of 1949 provides a plan for classifying positions and sets 

out 15 grade levels. The law expresses these grade levels in terms of the 

difficulty and level of responsibility for a specific position. OPM develops 

standards that must be consistent with the principles in the Classification 

Act of 1949. The classification system categorizes jobs or positions 

according to the kind of work done, the level of difficulty and 

responsibility, and the qualifications required for the position, and serves as 

a building block to determine the pay for the position. Today’s knowledgebased organizations’ jobs require a much broader array of tasks that may 

cross over the narrow and rigid boundaries of job classification standards 

and make it difficult to fit the job appropriately into one of the over 400 

occupations. According to a recent OPM study, a key problem with 

classification is that, under present rules, characteristics such as workload, 

quality of work, and results are not classification factors.16 

As reported in a January 2003 report of the National Commission on the 

Public Service, OPM’s director has noted that “continued reliance on this 

antiquated system is comparable to insisting that today’s offices use carbon 

paper and manual type writers.”17 Furthermore, NAPA in its July 2002 

report for the National Commission on the Public Service concluded that 

classification and compensation systems must be based on work and

16 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, A Fresh Start for Federal Pay: The Case for 

Modernization (Washington, D.C.: April 2002).

17 National Commission on the Public Service, Urgent Business for America: Revitalizing 

the Federal Government for the 21st Century (Washington, D.C.: January 2003).
Page 16 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

performance rather than position.18 The NAPA panel recommendations 

included abolishing the General Schedule and developing a modern system 

for defining and valuing work, which could help to make the hiring process 

more results-oriented and efficient. The National Commission on the 

Public Service recommended that operating agencies need more flexible 

personnel management systems. The commission recommended 

abolishing the General Schedule and as a default position, recommended a 

broadband system under which the 15 pay grades and salary ranges would 

be consolidated into six to eight broad bands with relatively wide salary 

ranges.19

Actions Under Way

Some agencies have automated the complicated classification process to 

reduce the time it takes to carry out this task. For example, the Army 

created a centralized database that gives Army HR managers access to 

active position descriptions and position-related information to help with 

the classification process. In addition, OPM has revised the standards for 

several job series, including health care professions and law enforcement, 

to make them clearer and more applicable to the current duties and 

responsibilities of the occupations. But such steps are only partial 

solutions to the classification issue. OPM points out that the classification 

standards and process need to be reformed. Changes to the Classification 

Act of 1949 are needed to make fundamental changes to how jobs are 

defined and pay is set. Specifically, OPM believes that the time may have 

come for substantive reform that brings the era of the General Schedule 

classification system to a close. OPM recognizes the need to maintain the 

General Schedule in the absence of an alternative and well-managed 

transition to any new system.20

18 National Academy of Public Administration, Summary of Human Resource Management 

for the National Commission on the Public Service (Washington, D.C.: July 2002).

19 National Commission on the Public Service, Urgent Business for America – Revitalizing 

the Federal Government for the 21st Century (Washington, D.C.: January 2003).

20 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, A Fresh Start for Federal Pay: The Case for 

Modernization (Washington, D.C.: April 2002).
Page 17 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Job Vacancy Announcement 

Content Cited as Hampering 

the Hiring Process

The Problem

Several HR directors we interviewed for this study cited the content of job 

announcements as a factor that hampered or delayed the hiring process. 

These HR directors noted that job announcements are frequently 

incomprehensible and make it difficult for applicants to determine what 

the jobs require, and therefore do not serve as effective recruiting tools. A 

February 2000 MSPB study stated that federal job announcements 

generally appeared to be written for people already employed by the 

government and that the use of jargon and acronyms is a common 

problem.21 The study noted that some announcements were lengthy, 

difficult to read on-line, and only gave brief or vague descriptions of the 

duties to be performed. Vague job descriptions make it difficult for 

applicants to describe how their knowledge, skills, and abilities are related 

to the job. MSPB also noted that almost no announcements included 

information on retirement and other benefits, such as vacation time and 

medical and health insurance, which might entice people to apply. The 

study recommended that OPM and agencies improve how vacancy 

announcements are posted on the Internet. The report said making them 

more visually appealing, informative, and easy to navigate could also make 

announcements more effective as a recruiting tool. In a December 2002 

report on federal vacancy announcements, MSPB reported that its review 

of the quality of 100 vacancy announcements posted on USAJOBS 

indicated that 53 percent were poor, 2 percent were good, while 45 percent 

were judged acceptable.22 The problems in the vacancy announcements 

included poor organization and readability, unclear job titles and duties, 

vague or restrictive qualification standards, and the use of negative 

language or tone that might deter many qualified candidates.

Actions Under Way

Both agencies and OPM are taking some steps to address this problem. For 

example, the Department of Health and Human Services rewrote one of its 

typical vacancy announcements for budget analysts to make it more 

understandable and appealing to applicants outside the government. 

21 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Competing for Federal Jobs – Job Search 

Experiences of New Hires (Washington, D.C.: February 2000).

22 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy 

Announcements (Washington, D.C.: December 2002).
Page 18 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Instead of the typical language such as “incumbent is responsible for 

monitoring the results of budget execution and formulation input from six 

regional budget offices in coordination with the controller,” the 

announcement’s language began with “For the energetic individual who 

wants a challenging career with growth and advancement opportunities, 

we have positions available that will challenge to you to grow and learn 

[and are on] the cutting edge of the nation’s health and human service 

policy and provide vital information and support required by our policy 

makers.” In addition, the job announcement was posted on a private sector 

job search site and in The Washington Post employment section. This 

approach garnered more than 100 qualified applicants per position, 

compared to 20 qualified applicants per position under the traditional 

announcements on USAJOBS Web site.23 

To address unclear job announcements, OPM has initiated an interagency 

project to modernize federal job vacancy announcements, including 

providing guidance to agencies to enhance announcements, and instituting 

a multiprong approach to using e-government technology to assist job 

seekers and employees governmentwide. Specifically, OPM has improved 

the Web site to strengthen the job search engine, rewritten the USAJOBS by 

Phone system to improve speech recognition, and redesigned the way 

vacancy announcements appear on the Web site. Currently, OPM is seeking 

contractor support for its USAJOBS to make it easier and quicker for 

people to find federal jobs and to enhance the site’s “eye-catching” appeal.

Key Assessment Tool and 

Related Hiring Programs 

Are Ineffective

The Problem

Several HR directors and human capital experts have found problems with 

candidate assessment tools, particularly those associated with filling entrylevel professional and administrative occupations covered by the Luevano 

Consent Decree of 1981. In addition, both OPM and MSPB noted in studies 

that there is a need to develop new assessment tools for occupations and 

higher-grade levels that are not covered by the Luevano decree that are 

more efficient and valid predictors of future job performance. Primary 

responsibility for developing assessment tools rests with the agencies, but 

frequently agencies do not have the expertise or resources to develop 

them. In addition to problems found with assessment tools, two hiring 

23 Government Executive, Hire Power (Washington, D.C.: February 2002).
Page 19 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

authorities set forth in the Luevano Consent Decree —Outstanding Scholar 

and Bilingual/Bicultural—may not be merit based. 

Several HR directors we met with and a NAPA study found that the 

Administrative Careers with America (ACWA) self-rating schedule 

examination procedure that is currently used to competitively fill most 

positions covered by the Luevano decree was cumbersome, delayed hiring, 

and often did not provide quality candidates. The Luevano decree called 

for eliminating the use of the Professional and Administrative Career Exam 

(PACE) and required replacing it with alternative examination 

procedures.24 The ACWA exam, which was developed by OPM for Luevano 

positions, was generally administered by OPM to applicants. Agencies 

entered into reimbursable contracts with OPM to receive lists of candidates 

who passed the exam. OPM has now delegated authority to administer the 

ACWA exam to agencies’ delegated examining units.25 In addition, some 

exams have been developed to replace ACWA for a few occupations.

Agency managers criticized the ACWA examination because they said it is 

not merit based, according to a NAPA study.26 The ACWA rating-schedule 

examination contains 157 multiple-choice questions that distinguish among 

qualified applicants on the basis of their self-rated education and life 

experience, rather than on their relative knowledge, skills, and abilities for 

the vacant position.27 The study reported that agencies said the ACWA 

examination is not relevant to specific jobs and occupations and therefore 

does not result in lists of “qualified individuals ... solely on the basis of 

relative ability, knowledge, and skill”—a key merit systems principle. 

24 PACE which was used to fill entry-level positions at the GS-5 and GS-7 level for over 100 

professional and administrative occupations, was found to have an adverse impact on 

African Americans and Hispanics.

25 In addition to the ACWA exam, OPM has developed separate alternative examination 

procedures for a number of positions covered by the Luevano decree. In its comments on a 

draft of this report, DOD noted that administration of the ACWA exam was not delegated to 

agencies until October 2002 and that the authority cannot be redelegated to components. 

26 National Academy of Public Administration, Entry-Level Hiring and Development for 

the 21st Century: Professional and Administrative Positions (Washington, D.C.: November 

1999).

27 There also is a written ACWA exam that was developed prior to the multiple choice exam.
Page 20 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Consequently, many agencies reported that the primary reason they did not 

use the ACWA test was their past experience with the quality of the 

candidates. In a more recent study, NAPA recommended that the ACWA 

examination system be terminated and agencies be permitted to hire for 

professional and administrative occupations using techniques that are 

proven more operationally efficient and effective in meeting diversity 

shortfalls.28 Also, MSPB recommended that OPM develop new assessment 

tools for the occupations covered under the Luevano Consent Decree.29 

HR directors and other officials illustrated numerous problems with the 

ACWA exam. For example, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Human 

Resources at the Social Security Administration said that the ACWA 

examination process used for its mainstream entry-level positions—claims 

representative, computer specialist, criminal investigator, and regional 

support position—covered by the Luevano Consent Decree is 

cumbersome, bureaucratic, and labor intensive. In another example, 

officials of a major military installation said that recruiting accountants and 

financial managers was hampered by the ACWA examination. They noted 

that managers believed the test was not an effective screen to identify 

quality candidates—a theme consistent with the NAPA study. They also 

pointed out that applicants were “turned off” to federal employment by the 

lack of relevance of many of the exam questions to the specific jobs for 

which they were applying.

Agencies cited the Outstanding Scholar program as a quick way to hire 

quality college graduates for positions covered by the Luevano decree. The 

Outstanding Scholar program and Bilingual/Bicultural program were 

authorized by the Luevano Consent Decree as supplemental tools to 

competitive examination. These programs were aimed at addressing the 

under representation of African-Americans and Hispanics in the 

workplace. Many HR directors and officials viewed the Outstanding 

Scholar program as a way to hire quality candidates without getting 

involved in the complexities of the OPM examination process. 

28 National Academy of Public Administration, Summary of Human Resources 

Management Research for the National Commission on the Public Service (Washington, 

D.C.: July 2002). 

29 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Making the Public Service Work – 

Recommendations for Change.
Page 21 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

However, OPM and MSPB have commented that this is an inappropriate 

use of the authority. This hiring authority uses both baccalaureate grade 

point average and class standing as eligibility criteria for appointment. This 

authority allows candidates who meet the eligibility criteria to be directly 

appointed without competition and operates without regard to veterans’ 

preference or the rule of three (see discussion about the rule of three and 

veterans’ preference later is this report). MSPB has noted, however, that 

eligibility criteria based on grade point average and class rank are highly 

questionable as valid predictors of future job performance and that they 

unnecessarily deny employment consideration to a large segment of the 

applicant pool who meet basic job qualification requirements. 

MSPB also has concerns about the Bilingual/Bicultural program because it 

permits the hiring of individuals who need not be the best qualified and 

avoids veterans’ preference. This hiring program permits an agency to 

directly hire an applicant who obtained a passing examination score, 

without further regard to rank, when the position should be filled by an 

incumbent with bilingual or bicultural skills and the applicant has the 

requisite skills. MSPB has also recommended abolishing both the 

Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural programs because other 

competitive hiring methods have been more effective in hiring minorities 

and because they are not merit based. 

For positions that are not covered by the Luevano Consent Decree, 

agencies typically examine candidates by rating and ranking them based on 

their experience, training, and education, rather than testing them. MSPB 

noted that the government’s interest is not well served if agencies do not 

have the resources and expertise to make high quality case examining 

determinations. According to MSPB, agencies use of computer-based 

assessments is increasing. MSPB notes this has implications for OPM 

because the validity of computer-based assessments and ranking is critical 

to ensuring that hiring is based solely on merit.30 Computer-based 

assessments would also have implications for category rating systems that 

are now permitted by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

In general, both OPM and MSPB are concerned about the validity of 

assessment tools for all occupations and advocate that agencies improve 

their assessment instruments. Under a largely decentralized approach, 

30 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Assessing Federal Job-Seekers in a Delegated 

Examining Environment (Washington, D.C: December 2001).
Page 22 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

agencies’ delegated examining units make decisions on which assessment 

tools or methods to use and on the development of new assessment tools. 

However, experts have noted that that there has been a lack of specialized 

experience in many agencies to develop and maintain valid, effective 

applicant assessment methodologies. OPM told us that because of budget 

constraints, it has spent more of its resources on services for which 

agencies are willing to pay rather than on providing tools that it might have 

believed to be more valuable, like assessment instruments. OPM also 

noted that many agencies do not have the technical expertise, funding, or 

time to develop valid assessment tools. MSPB concluded in a recent report 

that OPM is a logical organization to which agencies should be able to turn 

for help in developing valid assessment tools and systems, but is not 

funded to provide that assistance except on a reimbursable basis.31 

Actions Under Way

OPM recognizes that it must do more to improve assessment tools. In its 

fiscal year 2003 performance plan, OPM included a strategic objective that, 

by fiscal year 2005, governmentwide hiring selections are to be based on 

comprehensive assessment tools that assess the full range of competencies 

needed to perform the jobs of the future. 

Manual Processes Are Time 

Consuming and Paperwork 

Intensive

The Problem

A key problem noted by many HR directors is that much of the hiring 

process is done manually. Among the most frequently cited factors that 

hampered or delayed hiring were the logistics of convening assessment 

panels and the time-consuming process of manually rating and ranking job 

applicants. Twelve agency HR directors we interviewed commented that 

manually rating and ranking candidates, or the panel process, was a 

significant cause of delay in hiring. In addition, time-consuming and 

paperwork-intensive record keeping is needed to document the rationale of 

assessment panel ratings. 

Prior to assessing applicants based on their relative merits, agencies must 

conduct a screening process to determine if applicants meet eligibility 

requirements (e.g. are U.S. citizens) and the basic or minimum education or 

31 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Assessing Federal Job-Seekers in a Delegated 

Examining Environment.
Page 23 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

work experience qualifications that OPM established for such a position. 

In a manual hiring system, staff members would have to review all the 

applications and document why an applicant did or did not meet minimum 

qualifications. If there are a large number of applicants, carrying out this 

process can be time consuming. 

Once the applicants’ eligibility is determined, agencies typically undertake 

a labor-intensive effort to establish and convene assessment panels and 

manually rate and rank the candidates based on their relative merits. 

According to one of the HR directors we met with, the logistics of setting 

up an assessment panel meeting makes for long delays in the hiring 

process, in some cases up to 1 month. Some of the delay is due to 

assembling the appropriate managers and subject matter experts, 

coordinating their availability, and factoring in the exigencies of other 

demands and travel time. Once the panel is formed, the panel sorts through 

all of the applicants’ paperwork, assesses the applicants, and determines a 

numerical score for each applicant by rating the education and experience 

described by the applicant against the evaluation criteria in the crediting 

plan for the position. At this point, any applicable veterans’ preference 

points are added to the applicants’ score. As mentioned previously, the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002 permits an agency to use a category rating 

system that might make assessing candidates less complex and time 

consuming.

Automation has the potential to streamline operations by electronically 

rating and ranking applicants, or placing them in quality categories, 

eliminating the need to form assessment panels, and greatly reducing the 

paperwork burden associated with manual assessments. An automated 

system creates an easily assessable audit trail so that managers and HR 

staffs could document their decisions. In addition, an automated system 

could electronically determine if an applicant met the basic qualifications 

and electronically notify the applicant of his or her eligibility for the job for 

which he or she applied. 

Actions Under Way

Nineteen of the 24 agency HR directors we met with said they had 

automated or planned to automate at least a portion of their hiring 

processes. Some of these agencies have automated or planned to automate 

the rating and ranking processes. Agencies have used private vendors or 

have contracted to use OPM’s USA Staffing automated hiring package. 
Page 24 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

USGS automated its hiring system and estimated that it cut hiring time 

from the close of a job announcement to issuing a job certificate from 30 to 

60 days to under 7 days. USGS’s automated system is a computerized 

employment application processing system, which automates many of the 

functions and tasks of the competitive examination process. It 

electronically prescreens applicants and rates and ranks applicants 

according to specified job-related criteria. This also eliminates the need to 

convene rating and ranking panels and reduces the paperwork and 

administrative burden associated with documenting manual rating and 

ranking. The system also electronically refers the job certificate to the 

selecting official who has the rating and ranking data, résumés, and other 

information on his or her desktop, an improvement in efficiency. 

Furthermore, it makes recruiting data available on-line to authorized staff 

members. Applicant benefits include user-friendly on-line application and 

timely feedback on the status of applications. NAPA chronicled the 

success of USGS’s automated system in a 2001 report. The report notes 

that 1 year after being implemented, “it is clear that the program is a huge 

success.”32 The report lays out the successes based on USGS information 

to include a significant reduction of processing time a reduction of 1,800 

staff days of work, and a nearly tenfold increase in the number of 

applicants for many of its announcements.

Census also automated its hiring process. The impetus for Census to 

change from its manual hiring system to the automated system for its 

occupations covering the majority of its ongoing hiring needs—information 

technology specialist, statistician, and mathematical statistician—was a 

large number or positions (500 positions) and urgent hiring needed for the 

2000 Census.33 The agency put together a team of managers, human 

resource staff, and programmers and worked with OPM to automate hiring 

for these three occupations. In 1998, Census automated their hiring system 

through OPM for the three occupations. Under this system, OPM posts 

continuously open vacancy announcements for multiple grade levels. As 

part of a contract with Census, OPM receives the applications and 

maintains an inventory of applicants on its system and can rate and rank 

the applicants and generate a job certificate for Census within 3 days of the 

request for a certificate. Since there is no closing date for job 

32 National Academy of Public Administration, The Quest for Talent: Recruitment Strategies 

for Federal Agencies (Washington, D.C.: 2001).

33 These 500 positions were professional in nature and not part of the temporary enumerator 

workforce hired for the 2000 Census.
Page 25 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

announcements, many phases of the typical federal hiring process have 

been completed in advance of a Census request for a certificate. Census 

managers provide quality-ranking factors to OPM when they request a job 

certificate. In addition, Census managers have electronic access to 

information on the applicants because OPM updates Census’s database 

daily. Census officials told us that additional applicant information 

collected by recruiters on college campuses provides managers pertinent 

skill data, which could eliminate personal interviews. Census estimated 

that time to hire declined from 3 to 4 months to a week or less. For other 

occupations, Census continues to use its manual competitive examination 

hiring process to hire people from outside the government. 

The Rule of Three Limits 

Managers’ Choice of Quality 

Candidates

The Problem

One of the largest obstacles to the federal hiring process mentioned in our 

interviews with HR directors was the rule of three. Specifically, 15 of the 24 

HR directors we met with raised concerns about the negative impact of the 

rule of three on hiring. Once the panel has rated and ranked the 

candidates and applied applicable veterans’ preference points, the panel 

refers a sufficient number of candidates to permit the appointing officer to 

consider three candidates that are available for appointment. The selecting 

official is required to select from among the top three ranked candidates 

available for appointment—this is the rule of three.34 If a candidate with 

veterans’ preference is on the list, the selecting official cannot pass over 

the veteran and select a lower ranking candidate without veterans’ 

preference unless the selecting official’s objection to hiring the veteran is 

sustained by OPM.35 The Homeland Security Act of 2002, enacted in 

November 2002, now permits agencies governmentwide to use category 

rating in lieu of numerical ranking and adherence to the rule of three.36 

OPM currently is drafting implementing guidance for this provision. A 

more complete description of category ranking is included in appendix II. 

It will be important for agencies to adopt category ranking to improve their 

hiring processes.

34 5 U.S.C. § 3318(a).

35 5 U.S.C. § 3318(b).

36 Section 1312(a)(2) of Pub. L. No. 107-296 (Nov. 25, 2002).
Page 26 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Choosing from among the top three candidates is problematic for a variety 

of reasons. MSPB noted in its study on the rule of three that “the 

examination procedures underpinning this hiring rule vary in their ability to 

make fine distinctions among candidates.” Further, veterans’ preference 

points are added to the imprecise numerical score generated through the 

panel’s examination process, which can result in veterans being ranked 

among the top three candidates. The result can be several candidates with 

the exact same score. When more than three candidates have the same 

score, examining offices may need to break the tie, usually by electing 

three of the candidates at random. 

Since current assessment tools cannot make fine distinctions between 

applicants, encouraging selection from as many qualified candidates as is 

reasonable enhances merit-based hiring. The MSPB conducted an in-depth 

study of the rule of three and its interaction with veterans’ preference.37 

MSPB concluded that given the limits of the examining process to predict 

future job performance, the curb on the number of candidates from which 

managers may select does not represent good hiring policy. It also noted 

that the rule of three’s original purpose was to provide choices. 

For several years, federal human capital experts said that categorical rating 

or grouping could provide an alternative to the rule of three methods and 

expand the number of candidates that a selecting official could choose 

from while protecting veterans’ preference. Both NAPA and MSPB 

supported abolishing numerical ranking and the rule of three and replacing 

them with category rating that would allow officials to select among

candidates that were placed in a high-quality category. However, 

candidates with veterans’ preference placed in the high-quality category 

would be hired before candidates without veterans’ preference. OPM also 

supported allowing agencies to use category rating in lieu of numerical 

ranking and the rule of three. 

Actions Under Way

The Department of Agriculture’s ARS and FS tested and implemented 

category rating in lieu of numerical ranking and the rule of three under an 

OPM demonstration project. The final 5-year evaluation of the project 

showed that (1) the number of candidates per job announcement 

37 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Rule of Three in Federal Hiring: Boon or 

Bane? (Washington, D.C.: December 1995).
Page 27 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

increased, (2) more candidates were referred to managers for selection, 

(3) hiring speed increased, and (4) there was greater satisfaction with the 

hiring process among managers. On average, there were from 60 percent 

(ARS) to 70 percent (FS) more applicants available for consideration under 

the demonstration project quality grouping procedure than under the 

standard rule of three and numerical ranking. A higher percentage of 

veterans were hired in the ARS and about the same percentage of veterans 

were hired by the FS compared with using the rule of three process. 

Specifically, at ARS 16.3 percent of all hires were veterans using categorical 

ranking, while just 9.5 percent were veterans using the rule of three. At 

ARS, the average length of time to hire was about 25 days quicker than at 

comparison sites. At FS, the time to hire was quicker, but the difference 

was not significantly different. Appendix II contains more information on 

the categorical ranking project carried out by the ARS and FS.

As noted previously, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, enacted in 

November 2002, included a governmentwide provision that OPM or an 

agency to which OPM has delegated examining authority may establish 

category rating systems for evaluating applicants for positions in the 

competitive service. Under this provision a selecting official can select 

anyone placed in the top category. However, a candidate with veterans’ 

preference who is placed in the top category could not be passed over by a 

selecting official unless objection to hiring the veteran is sustained by 

OPM. OPM is currently drafting guidance to implement this new flexibility.

OPM’s Role and 

Performance in the 

Federal Hiring Process

OPM has recognized that the hiring system needs improvement and, as 

pointed out earlier in this report, is taking a number of actions to address 

governmentwide hiring challenges. OPM’s current strategic plan includes a 

major objective to “Increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the Federal 

hiring process and make Federal employment attractive to high-quality 

applicants of diverse backgrounds.” To meet this objective, OPM has 

identified a number of strategies, including reducing regulatory burdens 

that hamper hiring, increasing recruitment through e-government 

initiatives, and identifying other governmentwide solutions to improve the 

hiring process. In addition, last spring OPM announced a hiring initiative 

that is designed to create momentum for success, build the image of public 

service, and fix the hiring process. A number of actions have already taken 

place in the first wave. In July 2002, OPM announced the development of a 

hiring preferred practices guide and asked agencies to contribute examples 

of how they had optimized existing hiring flexibilities. Also, last summer 

OPM held the government’s first “virtual job fair” for information 
Page 28 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

technology workers that demonstrated that critically needed staff could be 

hired effectively and efficiently. OPM said that in the coming months it will 

identify other projects and proposals that will address systemic problems 

associated with the hiring process. It will include deploying competencybased qualifications, improving entry-level hiring, and updating and 

modernizing exam scoring policy.

Our survey of HR directors in the fall of 2001 and then again in the fall of 

2002 showed mixed views on whether OPM helped or hindered the hiring 

process in their agencies. Specifically in 2001, 13 thought OPM helped, 5 

thought OPM neither helped nor hindered, and 5 thought OPM hindered 

their hiring processes. In 2002, 9 thought OPM helped, 9 thought OPM 

neither helped nor hindered, and four thought OPM hindered the 

processes. Details of our survey are included in appendix III.

HR directors we talked with identified other actions that OPM took to help 

their departments or agencies improve their hiring processes. These 

processes included delegation of examination authority, providing human 

capital expertise, and providing the USAJOBS and USA Staffing programs. 

The HR directors also identified areas in which OPM could take a more 

active role. Foremost, agencies said that OPM needed to be a more 

proactive resource and enhance its role as a “clearinghouse” of information 

and provide more guidance and better expertise to agencies. Agencies 

explained that OPM needed to provide information and “best practices” 

associated with automating the hiring process. They also noted that OPM 

could do more to address key obstacles in the hiring process, including 

outdated classification standards and inadequate assessment tools. 

Conclusions Improving the federal hiring process is critical as the number of new hires 

is expected to increase substantially to address the security needs arising 

from the terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001, and to replace the large 

number of employees expected to retire over the next few years. Agencies 

are responsible for maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of their 

hiring processes within the current statutory and regulatory framework. 

Steps toward a higher-level hiring system include using a data-driven 

approach to identify hiring barriers and ways to overcome them. A key 

step includes automating the hiring process, which may drive efficiency 

and reduce the administrative and paperwork burden. Innovative and best 

practices of model agencies need to be made available to other agencies in 

order to facilitate the transformation of agency hiring practices from 

compliance based to one focused on the agencies’ missions. While many 
Page 29 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

improvements to hiring processes can be made by agencies themselves, 

OPM has recognized that it needs to do more to address some key 

governmentwide problems.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

OPM’s hiring initiatives are moving in the direction that will help agencies 

improve their hiring processes. OPM can assist agencies by helping the 

agencies to improve and streamline their hiring processes by taking a 

comprehensive and strategic approach. Consistent with its current efforts 

to improve the federal hiring process, OPM needs to take a number of 

specific actions to strengthen federal hiring. Accordingly, as a part of its 

overall hiring initiative, we recommend that OPM

• study how to simplify, streamline, and reform the classification process;

• assist agencies in automating their hiring processes;

• continue to assist agencies in making job announcements and Web 

postings more user friendly and effective;

• develop and help agencies develop improved hiring assessment tools; 

and

• review the effectiveness of the Outstanding Scholar and 

Bilingual/Bicultural Luevano Consent Decree hiring authorities.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

OPM and DOD provided written comments on a draft of this report. 

Technical comments were provided orally by USGS and via email by 

Census, ARS, and FS. These technical comments have been incorporated 

into the report.

OPM generally agreed with the conclusions and recommendations in the 

report. However, OPM expressed several concerns with our methodology. 

It believes the section on the classification and position description 

process could be misleading because the majority of jobs are filled without 

this step. We agree, but note that the more important problem with the 

classification process is that inaccurate position descriptions and related 

pay determinations that result from the job classification could hamper 

efforts to fill the positions with the right employees. OPM also believed 

that our draft missed an opportunity to hold agencies more accountable for 
Page 30 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

their hiring processes. Throughout the draft, we note that agencies are 

primarily responsible for their hiring processes and provide concrete 

examples of what some agencies have done to improve their processes. 

OPM also provides several examples of actions it is taking to improve the 

hiring process. Finally, OPM questioned our methodology of meeting with 

agency HR directors to assess how well OPM is assisting agencies in 

improving their hiring processes. It believes that chief operating officers 

would provide a better perspective of agency recruiting and retention 

issues. While we agree these officials could provide perspective about the 

results of the hiring process, agency HR directors better understand and 

are responsible for their agencies’ hiring processes.

DOD noted several areas where it believed that OPM needed to do much 

more to address governmentwide hiring problems. We agree that OPM 

should do more to improve governmentwide hiring and include several 

recommendations to OPM.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents earlier, 

we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its date. At 

that time, we will send copies of this report to the Chair, Senate Committee 

on Governmental Affairs, the Chairman, House Committee on Government 

Reform, the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency 

Organization, House Government Reform. We will also send copies to the 

Director of OPM, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Commerce, 

the Secretary of Interior, and the Secretary of Agriculture. We will also 

make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 

made available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http//:www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact Edward 

Stephenson or me on (202) 512-6806. Key contributors to this report are 

listed in appendix VI.

J. Christopher Mihm

Director, Strategic Issues
Page 31 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

List of Requesters

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Financial Management, the 

Budget and International Security 

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable George V. Voinovich

Chairman

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 

Management, the Federal Workforce 

and the District of Columbia

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Thad Cochran

United States Senate

The Honorable Danny K. Davis

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Civil Service 

and Agency Organization

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Dave Weldon, M.D.

House of Representatives
Page 32 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix I

Federal Hiring Using the Competitive Service Apendxeis

or the Excepted Service ApenIdxi

Federal civil service employees, other than those in the Senior Executive 

Service (SES) are employed in either the competitive service, 5 U.S.C. § 

2102(a), or the excepted service, 5 U.S.C. § 2103(a).1

 The competitive 

service examination process is one of the processes intended to ensure that 

agencies’ hiring activities comply with merit principles. This includes 

notifying the public that the government will accept applications for a job, 

screening applications against minimum qualification standards, and 

assessing applicants’ relative competencies or knowledge, skills, and 

abilities against job-related criteria to identify the most qualified 

applicants. Federal agencies typically examine or assess candidates by 

rating and ranking them based on of their experience, training, and 

education, rather than by testing them.2

 

Except as noted before, Title 5 of the U.S. Code requires federal examining 

offices to give job applicants numerical scores and refer candidates for 

employment to selecting officials based on their scores. Higher scores 

theoretically represent greater merit and thus improve candidates’ 

employment opportunities. In addition, veterans’ preference requires 

augmenting scores of certain individuals because of military service 

performed by them or members of their families.3

 The rule of three 

requires managers to select from among the top three numerically ranked 

candidates available for appointment.4

 However, if a candidate with 

veterans’ preference is among the top three candidates, the manager 

cannot pass over the veteran and select a lower ranked candidate without 

veterans’ preference unless the selecting official’s objection to hiring the 

1

 Positions may be excepted from the competitive service by statute, by the President, or by 

the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 5 C.F.R. § 213.101. OPM may except positions 

from the competitive service when it determines that appointments into such positions 

through competitive examination are not practicable. 5 C.F.R. § 6.1(a). Excepted 

appointments can be under either Schedule A (e.g., chaplain and attorney positions), 

Schedule B (e.g. Student Career Experience Program and SES candidate development 

program positions), or Schedule C (political appointee positions). 5 C.F.R. Part 213, Subpart 

C.

2

 Agencies use written tests to assess certain outside candidates. The most important 

written tests are used for hiring into two groups: (1) GS-2, 3,and 4 entry-level clerks and 

technical positions, and (2) GS-5 and GS-7 professional and administrative positions 

covered by the Luevano Consent Decree. GS refers to General Schedule, which is the basic 

classification and compensation system for white-collar occupations in the federal 

government.

3

 5 U.S.C. § 3309.

4

 5 U.S.C. § 3318(a).
Appendix I

Federal Hiring Using the Competitive Service 

or the Excepted Service

Page 33 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

veteran is sustained by the Office Of Personnel Management (OPM).5 

Ensuring that these objectives are met involves several basic steps and the 

preparation of extensive supporting documentation.

Soon agencies will have greater flexibility under the competitive service 

examination process with the option of using category ranking. The 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, enacted on November 25, 2002, has a 

governmentwide provision that will now permit agencies to establish 

category rating systems for evaluating applicants by placing them in two or 

more quality categories based on merit.6

 The rule of three does not apply, 

and selecting officials can select anyone placed in a best-qualified category. 

However, if a candidate with veterans’ preference is placed in a bestqualified category, the veteran cannot be passed over and must be selected 

unless the selecting official’s objection to hiring the veteran is sustained by 

OPM. OPM is currently drafting guidance to implement this legislation.

5

 5 U.S.C. § 3318(b).

6

 Section 1312(a)(2) of Pub. L. No. 107-296 (Nov. 25, 2002).
Page 34 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix II

Description of Category Rating Project 

Carried Out by the Agricultural Research 

Service and the Forest Service ApenIdxi

A Department of Agriculture demonstration project carried out by the 

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the Forest Service (FS) 

demonstrated that category rating, or quality grouping, can provide 

managers with a larger pool of applicants from which to choose than 

numerical ranking and the rule of three, while protecting veterans’ 

preference. ARS and FS believed that the rule of three hampered their 

ability to hire the people they needed. From 1990 to 1998, ARS and FS 

carried out the U.S. Department of Agriculture Personnel Management 

Demonstration Project, authorized by the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM).1

 The purpose of the project was to develop a recruitment and 

selection program for new hires that was flexible and responsive to local 

recruitment needs. This was the first demonstration project testing a 

comprehensive simplification of the hiring system for both blue and whitecollar federal employees. 

The project tested the use of category rating as an alternative hiring 

process. Instead of numerical rating and ranking that required selection 

from the highest three scorers under the rule of three, under category 

rating applicants meeting minimum qualification standards are placed in 

one of two groups (quality and eligible) on the basis of their education, 

experience, and ability. All candidates in the quality group are available for 

selection; however, if the quality group contains a veteran, the veteran must 

be hired unless an objection to hiring the veteran is sustained. If the 

number of candidates falling into the quality group is inadequate, 

applicants from the eligible group can also be referred to the manager for 

selection. 

As noted before, evaluations of this demonstration project showed it to be 

effective. Because there was no mechanism in current law to make a 

demonstration project permanent, innovations that were tested 

successfully in demonstration projects could not be implemented 

permanently in the testing agency unless authorized by Congress in special 

legislation. The demonstration project at the Department of Agriculture 

was made permanent through legislation in October 1998.2

1

 OPM is authorized to waive civil service laws and regulations to permit agencies to test 

alternative personnel management approaches. 5 U.S.C. § 4703.

2

 Section 749 of Pub. L. No. 105-277 (Oct. 21, 1998).
Page 35 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix III

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApenIdxi

As agreed with the requesters and in accordance with discussions with 

their offices, the objectives of this study were to

• identify major factors that hamper or delay the federal hiring process;

• provide examples of innovative practices or approaches used by 

selected agencies to improve their hiring processes and have the 

potential to be adapted by other agencies; and 

• identify opportunities for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 

agencies, and others to improve the federal hiring process.

We reviewed the practices associated with how the government hires 

people from outside the government for competitive service positions, 

including entry-level and higher graded General Schedule positions. We 

focused our work on the competitive examination process used to fill those 

positions because that is usually the way that most agencies bring people 

into their organizations. In addition, we obtained information on special 

hiring authorities that are frequently used to hire people for entry-level 

positions and that may supplement the competitive examination hiring 

process. We did not review in detail how the government fills positions 

through merit promotions with people who are already employed by the 

federal government. 

To identify major factors that hamper or delay the competitive hiring 

process, we first reviewed our prior work and extant literature on federal 

hiring. We also interviewed experts and obtained their studies at

• the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), a federal agency that 

hears and decides civil service cases, reviews OPM regulations, and 

conducts studies of the federal government’s merit system; 

• the National Academy of Public Administration, an independent 

nonpartisan, nonprofit, congressionally chartered organization that 

assists federal, state, and local governments in improving their 

performance; 

• the National Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan organization 

dedicated to revitalizing the public service; and

• OPM, the federal government’s human resources (HR) agency. 
Appendix III

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 36 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

We used experts’ findings or observations to augment information we 

obtained from federal agencies and incorporated them into our report as 

appropriate. We then reviewed the pertinent laws, Code of Federal 

Regulations and OPM’s Delegated Examining Operations Handbook that 

governs the competitive examination hiring process in order to describe 

how the hiring process works and to later describe what agency human 

resource directors and studies identified as steps, processes, or regulatory 

requirements that hampered or delayed hiring. In addition, we reviewed 

data on hiring contained in OPM’s Central Personnel Data File.

Next we gathered information on our three objectives by conducting 

semistructured interviews with the HR directors of the 24 largest federal 

departments and agencies. The interviews were conducted from 

September through December 2001. The open-ended questions were 

categorized and coded and entered into a database we created. Responses 

to closed questions on how significant a problem time to hire was were also 

entered into our database. At least two staff reviewers collectively coded 

the responses from each of the 24 interviews, and the coding was verified 

when entered into the database. 

In addition to these interviews with HR directors, we conducted brief 

surveys of these 24 directors in both the fall of 2001 and fall of 2002.1

 All 24 

HR directors responded to both surveys. During the period between the 

2001 and 2002 surveys, 16 of the 24 individuals left their positions. 

The results of each of these surveys are shown in table 3.

1

 These surveys were conducted in conjunction with our work on personnel flexibilities. 

Our work on flexibilities resulted in two reports: Human Capital: Effective Use of 

Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies in Managing Their Workforces (GAO-03-2, Dec. 6, 2002) 

and Human Capital: OPM Can Better Assist Agencies in Using Personnel Flexibilities

(GAO-03-428, May 9, 2003, restricted until June 9, 2003.)
Appendix III

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 37 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Table 3: Survey Responses from 24 HR Directors

Source: GAO.

In order to provide examples of innovative practices or approaches used by 

selected agencies to improve their hiring processes and that have the 

potential to be adapted by other agencies, we conducted a second phase of 

interviews at five selected agencies from February through November 

2002: Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and 

Forest Service (FS), U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Census Bureau 

(Census), and Department of the Army (Army). We selected those agencies 

based on interviews with HR directors across government and discussions 

with HR experts who noted that these agencies had taken actions to 

improve their hiring practices. 

We assessed the role that OPM has played in the hiring process through 

interviews with HR directors at the 24 largest departments or agencies, 

experts at MSPB and OPM, and by reviewing expert studies and other 

information. We provided a draft of this report to OPM, DOD, Census, ARS, 

FS, and USGS for review and comment. Their responses and comments are 

discussed at the end of the report. We did our review in Washington D.C., 

from June 2001 through January 2003 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. 

Question Response Fall 2001 Fall 2002

To what extent is the time 

needed to fill a position, or 

“hiring time,” a problem within 

your department /agency?

Little or no extent 0 0

Some extent 2 3

Moderate extent 7 8

Great extent 13 10

Very great extent 2 3

No basis to judge/NA 0 0

Overall, would you say that 

OPM has helped or hindered 

the hiring process in your 

department/agency?

Greatly hindered 0 2

Somewhat hindered 5 2

Neither helped nor hindered 5 9

Somewhat helped 11 7

Greatly helped 2 2

No basis to judge/NA 1 2
Page 38 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix IV

Comments from the Office of Personnel 

Management ApenVIdxi

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.

See comment 1.

See comment 2.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Office of Personnel 

Management

Page 39 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

See comment 3.

See comment 4.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Office of Personnel 

Management

Page 40 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

See comment 5.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Office of Personnel 

Management

Page 41 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

See comment 6.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Office of Personnel 

Management

Page 42 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

The following are GAO’s comments on the Office of Personnel 

Management’s (OPM) letter dated May 6, 2003.

GAO Comments 1. OPM questioned our methodology of meeting with agency human 

resources (HR) directors to assess how well OPM is assisting agencies 

in improving their hiring processes. OPM believes that chief operating 

officers would provide a better perspective of agency recruiting and 

retention issues. While we agree these officials could provide 

perspective about the results of the hiring process, agency HR directors 

better understand and are responsible for their agency hiring process 

and most directly interact with OPM. Agency HR directors are 

therefore in an excellent position to speak to federal hiring issues and 

OPM’s leadership.

2. OPM said it was unclear why we identified the five hiring problem areas 

and also that the quality of hires was not identified as an issue. We 

identified these areas based on our discussions with human capital and 

other officials across government and in our review of studies by the 

Merit Systems Protection Board and the National Academy of Public 

Administration. Our assessment of these problems considered the 

impact on the quality of hires. For example, we note in our discussion 

of the federal job classification process that it not only delays the hiring 

process for those positions requiring the development of job 

descriptions, but more important, the resulting job classification and 

related pay might not match the actual duties of the job. This mismatch 

can hamper efforts to fill the position with the right employee. We also 

note that the automated process at the U.S. Geological Survey 

increased the number of applicants—which increases the likelihood of 

filling a position with the right person. Finally, in our discussion of the 

use of the Administrative Careers with America (ACWA) test we note 

managers’ concerns with the quality of candidates who were referred 

based on the test results. The recommendation to address this issue 

was primarily based on the fact that, according to managers, the test 

was not referring quality candidates.

3. OPM said that our conclusions about the classification process could 

be misleading. For example, it believes the section on the classification 

and position description process could be misleading because the 

majority of jobs are filled without this step. We agree, but note that the 

more important problem with the classification process is that the 

existing inaccurate position description and related pay that resulted 
Appendix IV

Comments from the Office of Personnel 

Management

Page 43 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

from the job classification could hamper efforts to fill the position with 

the right employee. OPM also said that although it agreed that the 

grade level definitions that underpin the entire classification system are 

decades old, it has taken steps to revise position classification 

standards. We note in our report that OPM has and is continuing to 

revise position standards, but point out that the basic system needs 

revision. This position is not inconsistent with OPM’s and others’ views 

of classification. OPM’s white paper on pay notes a key problem with 

classification is that, under present rules, characteristics such as 

workload, quality of work, and results are not classification factors. 

OPM and others conclude that the classification system needs basic 

revision.

4. OPM points out in its comments that it has taken several steps to assist 

agencies in improving their vacancy announcements. We recognized 

many of these actions in our actions under way section and have 

augmented the section to further outline OPM’s positive steps.

5. OPM had some concerns about our comments about the ACWA test. 

We noted that managers were critical of the ACWA exam because it was 

not merit based and it measures life experiences rather than 

knowledge, skills, and abilities. OPM says the ACWA exam was 

specifically developed to measure competencies critical to the success 

of the relevant occupations. We should point out that the ACWA exam 

is used for more than 100 different occupations. Agency managers we 

met with and several studies have pointed out that the test does not 

refer quality candidates. Even though OPM in its comments defends 

the ACWA exam, it agreed that the test needs to be reevaluated. We 

recommend that OPM help agencies improve all applicant assessment 

tools.

6. OPM said that the report misses an opportunity to hold agencies more 

accountable for the cumbersome hiring process. Throughout the 

report, we point out that agencies are primarily responsible for 

improving their hiring processes and include several examples how the 

agencies we studied in detail took steps to improve various aspects of 

their hiring processes. These steps could be taken by agencies without 

any action by OPM. Several of our recommendations to OPM call for 

actions to assist agencies in addressing their hiring problems. 
Page 44 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix V

Comments from the Department of Defense ApenVdxi

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 45 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

See comment 3.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 46 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

See comment 4.

See comment 3.

See comment 7.

See comment 5.

See comment 6.

See comment 8.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 47 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

See comment 9.

See comment 10.

See comment 11.

See comments 3 and 9.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 48 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 

letter dated April 14, 2003.

GAO Comments 1. We have clarified that our report only discusses new hires to the federal 

government, particularly focusing on the competitive service hiring 

process. We note that agencies can also fill positions through the 

internal merit selection process and other intergovernmental methods.

2. The statement that agencies have the primary responsibility for their 

hiring processes is a fact. Our report outlines several actions that the 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has taken to address many 

hiring problems. We agree that OPM could do more and have made 

several recommendations that address that conclusion.

3. DOD noted the lack of progress by OPM in addressing the job 

classification system and applicant assessment tools. We agree that 

OPM needs to do more and have included recommendations in that 

regard. It should be noted that agencies have the primary responsibility 

to address their hiring problems. Although some problems, such as the 

job classification system, are outside the control of agencies, others, 

such as development of assessment tools is within the responsibility 

and control of the agency. The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) 

has pointed out that while agencies have the responsibility to develop 

assessment tools they often do not have the resources to do so. 

In addition, DOD said that implementing an automated hiring system 

like the one we describe at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) would 

take up to a decade because DOD is so large and diverse. DOD explains 

that converting from knowledge, skills, and abilities, to competencies 

takes a considerable amount of work. Although, USGS officials and we 

believe, and an independent study indicates that the specific USGS 

automated system has been successful, we are not endorsing a specific 

method of automation. Our larger point on this section is that 

automation can assist agencies with their hiring processes. 

4. It is correct that we did not attempt to compare procedures and time 

lines for hiring before and after OPM delegated examining authority to 

agencies in 1996. Such a comparison probably would yield little value 

to today’s discussion of hiring challenges.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 49 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

5. DOD says the classification system has been studied from every angle 

without producing significant results and that more study is not 

needed. We believe that more analysis is needed to determine exactly 

how to either revise the classification system or develop an entirely 

new approach to determining job descriptions and pay determinations.

6. DOD asked that we explain why the number of new hires has increased 

since the mid-1990s. We have added text to the report that explains that 

hiring in the mid-1990s declined because many agencies were 

downsizing and did not need to fill positions. We also added that with 

the slowdown in downsizing and the increasing number of employees 

retiring, agencies are increasingly hiring new employees.

7. Our draft report had noted that DOD did not respond to our fall 2002 

survey of human resources (HR) directors. DOD explained that it 

responded to our survey of HR directors in November 2002. However, 

we did not receive itd response until April 2003. We have now included 

DOD’s response in our analysis of the 2002 HR director responses.

8. DOD points out that OPM has not taken any significant action to 

address problems related to the Luevano Consent Decree. We agree 

that the problems with the Luevano Consent Decree need to be 

addressed and have made a recommendation to OPM to review the 

effectiveness of the Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural 

Luevano Consent Decree hiring authorities.

9. DOD notes that examining for Administrative Careers with America 

(ACWA) positions was not delegated to agencies until October 2002 and 

that the authority cannot be redelegated to components. We have 

added this information to our report.

10. DOD noted that we did not analyze the planned actions in OPM’s 

strategic plan. In several areas, we have outlined actions that OPM is 

currently taking to address some of the hiring challenges, including 

some areas specific to actions indicated in OPM’s strategic plan.

11. DOD notes that our report credits OPM with developing new guidance 

in several human capital areas with no indication of the involvement of 

agencies. OPM has explained that one of the vehicles it has used to 

involve agencies is the Human Resources Management Council, an 

interagency organization of federal HR directors. It should be noted 

that the recently enacted Homeland Security Act of 2002 establishes an 
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 50 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Interagency Chief Human Capital Officer Council, which could replace 

the Human Resources Management Council.
Page 51 GAO-03-450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix VI

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApenVdxiI

GAO Contacts J. Christopher Mihm or Edward Stephenson, (202) 512-6806

Acknowledgments In addition to the persons named above, John Ripper, Tom Beall, Ridge 

Bowman, Christopher Booms, Karin Fangman, Fig Gungor, Donna Miller, 

Greg Wilmoth, and Kimberly Young made key contributions to this report.

(450034)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to GAO 

Mailing Lists” under “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00